| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lily |
Posted - Jul 01 2007 : 10:11:57 PM
I found this report on Discovery Channel News and it makes me want to cry. I'm curious, since many of us have or have had jobs directly dealing with conservation and management, what do you think about the authors' conclusions in the first paragraph?
Study: Wilderness Vanishing From Earth
June 29, 2007 Humans have domesticated the planet to such a degree that few untouched spots remain, researchers report in a review article published in the journal Science.
Earth is so tamed that conservationism should shift focus from protecting nature from humans to better understanding and managing a domesticated world, the authors said.
"There is no such thing as nature untainted by people," writes Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy, a non-profit group. "Facing this reality should change the scientific focus of environmental science."
As of 1995, only 17 percent of the world's land area remained truly wild with no human populations, crops, road access or night-time light detectable by satellite, the authors reported.
Half of the world's surface area is used for crops or grazing; more than half of all forests have been lost to land conversion; the largest land mammals on several continents have been eliminated; shipping lanes crisscross the oceans, according to the paper.
In Europe, 22,000 kilometers of coastline are paved.
Due to extensive damming, nearly six times as much water is held in artificial storage worldwide as is free-flowing, according to the article.
Beyond the obvious signs of human influence, other, more subtle changes are evident everywhere, Kareiva said.
Natural selection has been supplanted by human selection, meaning that certain species such as companion pets thrive, while others such as river trout have been altered specifically for human consumption, often to their detriment.
In the African nation of Namibia, overfishing has allowed large jellyfish to bloom. Prior to 1970, fishermen rarely snared large jellyfish in the Benguela ecosystem off the northern coast of Namibia.
Today, three times more jellyfish are caught than commercial fish in this region, according to the paper.
Altering ecosystems leaves them vulnerable to disturbances and less resilient, Kareiva said.
Carving out parkland hasn't worked either, the authors argue.
Protecting nature through national and state parks has only domesticated these regions. The Nature Conservancy's leading mission is protecting private lands.
The Fuji-Hakone-Izu Park in Japan, among the world's most popular parks, for instance, has more than 100 million visitors a year and includes spas, hotels, golf courses and trams.
Heavy human traffic in the worlds' protected areas has changed them forever, introducing non-native species, air pollution and trash, according to the article.
"In the modern world, wilderness is more commonly a management and regulatory designation than truly a system without a human imprint," Kareiva wrote. This trend will only accelerate with human population growth, he said.
In light of this, conservationists need to look more closely at trade-offs among ecosystem services, such as increased food production leading to overuse of antibiotics in animals, "so that nature and people simultaneously thrive," the authors concluded.
source: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/29/wilderness_pla.html?category=earth
|
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Elizaray |
Posted - Jul 02 2007 : 8:44:57 PM
I think it is a sad statement when we are being told to just throw our hands up and give up. There wouldn't be hardly ANY wild land left if conservationalist hadn't been fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way! Look at the inland Northwest and the owl habitat for example. Would it have been better to just give up and let the lumber industry destroy the forest?
I think that even if the wilds have been "altered" A lot of that alteration doesn't affect most of the forest. It sounds like they were taking a pretty stark view of alterations. I mean- most of the forest animals aren't going to care if one little road crosses through the area- as long as it doesn't get high traffic.
To be realistic, we do have to consider human activities, but we should have the health of said area as the most important goal. Humans are part of this world too! :)
Elizaray |
| Jen |
Posted - Jul 02 2007 : 1:13:14 PM
It is such a sad state off affairs, Lily. I actually do agree with the idea that the we have to manage what resources we have left with human interests in mind, but that's a pretty simplistic statement with lots of complicated innuendo - and I certainly don't mean throwing up our hands & surrendering remaining wilderness to industry (I don't care how altered it is). I also think that efforts to preserve habitat & confine development are vital. The balancing act begins with private land, which outweighs public land here in the U.S.
Check this out:
"Over 60 percent of the land in the United States is privately owned...Private land, except that under American Indian and Alaska Native ownership, totaled nearly 1.4 billion acres in 2002. Between 1997 and 2002, private ownership increased in forest-use land by 2 million acres and in special uses, urban, and miscellaneous by a total of 17 million acres. Privately owned land includes 99 percent of the Nation's cropland, 61 percent of the grassland pasture and range, 56 percent of the forest-use land, and 30 percent of the special-use, urban, and miscellaneous land." From Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002/EIB-14, Economic Research Service/USDA
My hub works for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), and their job is to cost-share on projects that benefit natural resources on private land (often by improving the efficiency of farm operations, which benefits the landowner's production as well). If people can continue working the land (serving human consumptive "needs"), then that land will at least remain partially useable by wild species as well. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than concrete.
Anyway, that sort of stuff gives me hope. I also believe in the biosphere preserve idea:
"A biosphere reserve is an international conservation designation given by UNESCO under its Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). The World Network of Biosphere Reserves is the collection of all 507 biosphere reserves in 102 countries (as of dec 2006).
According to The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, biosphere reserves are created to promote and demonstrate a balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere. Under article 4, biosphere reserves must encompass a mosaic of ecological systems, and thus consist of combinations of terrestrial, coastal, or marine ecosystems.
Through appropriate zoning and management, the conservation of these ecosystems and their biodiversity is sought to be maintained.
The design of the reserve must include a legally protected core area, a buffer area where non-conservation activities are prohibited, and a transition zone where approved practices are permitted. This is done with regard for the sustainable use of natural resources for the benefit of local communities. This effort requires relevant research, monitoring, education and training.
All the above are tools for implementing Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international agreements." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_reserve (where you can also access maps of biosphere reserves worldwide).
Sort of a rambling response, but you get the idea!
Jen
The View From My Boots: www.bovesboots.blogspot.com
|
|
|
